Mandatory harvest reporting

[TheJason]

At least you have some penalty for non reporting.

I’ve talked to people that intentionally give false reports where I am. Reasonings all over the board; from if I report something small vs big less people might hunt here next year, report you harvested something big so people looking at data think you’re more successful than you really are, report no harvest so state won’t reduce opportunity in the future. Without something to make sure people are honest and do them I find reporting fairly useless

Yeah, truthfulness in reporting is always a question. I was hunting with some friends once who told me they deliberately falsified their harvest reports because they were worried the elk season structure would be changed.

 

[Sytes]

Would value MT joining the mandatory harvest reporting, for simple sake of our wardens/investigators use, none the less better measure of activity for limits, quota, etc for management of said ungulate (and predator ).

I know of a few others that got the call last week as well.

Same...

 

[Pelican]

And again, NM demonstrates a good incentive/penalty program in place to encourage responses earlier rather than later. It's free to submit your harvest report before mid-February. From February through the draw deadline (usually about a month) - it costs $8.

Here is a screen shot from NM’s harvest stats
The “percent reporting”column illustrates the issue with mandatory surveys, which is that everyone doesn’t complete the survey despite $8 late fees and rejected apps if surveys aren’t submitted.
I tried to find a publication from NM concerning their surveys, but couldn’t find one. Maybe they have a way to deal with non-responses, maybe they just ignore it, or maybe they estimate pops or set permit numbers differently than Colorado. I couldn’t find that info either. I’m curious if NM is one of the states referenced in the journal article that began self reporting due to political pressure like UT did.
Most people on this thread are trying to characterize this as a tech problem. That is not the crux. This a human nature problem. Get everyone to fill out there survey on time and self reporting works great, but until then, the trade off seems to be less precise survey data or more cost. Neither are preferable in any circumstance.

 

[Oak]

Bumping this old post. CPW is still touting this paper and defending their methods. Here’s a shot from a presentation at the Sportspersons Roundtable today. I’m not there, but I’ll bet @elkduds is, and can tell us what was said.

 

[SAJ-99]

Bumping this old post. CPW is still touting this paper and defending their methods. Here’s a shot from a presentation at the Sportspersons Roundtable today. I’m not there, but I’ll bet @elkduds is, and can tell us what was said.

View attachment 267051

I like how "published" was underlined. Is there a link? I would like to read it. I am not up to date on the specifics of how CO does the survey, but if it is anything like MT I'm sure someone is getting paid to oppose better methods.

 

[Oak]

I like how "published" was underlined. Is there a link? I would like to read it. I am not up to date on the specifics of how CO does the survey, but if it is anything like MT I'm sure someone is getting paid to oppose better methods.

It’s linked in the first post of this thread.

 

[SAJ-99]

It’s linked in the first post of this thread.

Thanks, I will read.

 

[SAJ-99]

Bumping this old post. CPW is still touting this paper and defending their methods. Here’s a shot from a presentation at the Sportspersons Roundtable today. I’m not there, but I’ll bet @elkduds is, and can tell us what was said.

View attachment 267051

Yeah, still BS for all the reasons cited previously. Most of the study is about trying to estimate the non-response bias, which I get. Changing a survey method makes previous methods less reliable. But non-response is a human-driven problem and the whole thing was apparently a simulation.

The paper shouldn't be used to estimate costs at all. It does a poor job of this and basically makes a ton of assumptions. I guess I would like to see the actual cost breakdown. I'm not sure every state is looking at the same cost inputs.

The quote below makes little sense given what I know about the MT system. 1) the "access to 24-hr reporting" is obviously not applicable, 2) some MT game animals have mandatory reporting.

Currently, states using self-reporting systems pay more per response for self-reporting than for a survey, for example, US$1.74/report versus US$0.43/survey in Montana (J. Gude, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, unpublished data). The difference in cost is created partly because hunters in these states currently appreciate access to 24-hr reporting lines in addition to online reporting sites. Such call centers typically do not exist within the state agencies, and these services must be contracted, which increases costs.

 

[elkduds]

Bumping this old post. CPW is still touting this paper and defending their methods. Here’s a shot from a presentation at the Sportspersons Roundtable today. I’m not there, but I’ll bet @elkduds is, and can tell us what was said.

View attachment 267051

I'l update the Roundtable info from yesterday over the next few days as time permits. Hint: The 1st and biggest topic was the erosion of hunter/angler influence in state government heirarchy, as noted by the article posted by @marksjeep:

Hunting groups quit CPW’s Colorado Outdoor Partnership, citing lack of focus on wildlife

Three hunter organizations have quit the Colorado Outdoor Partnership, citing concerns that the group was not addressing wildlife challenges

coloradosun.com

 

[NativeIndian]

I would think electronic tags would solve pretty much all of the issue. For the rare person who doesn't have a cell phone these days, mandatory check station before you leave the state. That would provide instant feedback/data for harvests. They could get the results out to us hunters at the end of a season. You should be able to know the harvest data well in advance of the next seasons draw.

 

[WildWill]

This is one thing NM does right. Require harvest reports be submitted or you're not eligible for next year's draw.